From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 6, 2003
309 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-10049

Submitted September 10, 2003.

October 6, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated August 28, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Ritchie A. Williams for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Pops Associates, New York, N.Y. (Seymour I. Yanofsky of counsel), for appellant.

Lewis, Johs, Avallone, Aviles Kaufman, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Michael G. Kruzynski of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, THOMAS A. ADAMS, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the initial showing by the defendant Ritchie A. Williams that the appellant did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to Williams dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him ( see Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230; Amato v. Psaltakis, 279 A.D.2d 439).

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Moore v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 6, 2003
309 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Moore v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:HUGH L. MOORE, appellant, v. RITCHIE A. WILLIAMS, respondent, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 6, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
765 N.Y.S.2d 264

Citing Cases

Rahman v. MacDonald

We reverse. In order to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate that he…